DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/251/2018
No. DF/ Central/
Radhakrishnan R
S/o Raveendran Nair. T
16. E, Pocket – 3, Mayur Vihar Phase – 1,
Near Uttara Guruvayoorappan Temple,
Delhi – 110091
COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Westside, Karol Bagh
Unit of Trent Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager/Business Head
15A; 34/35 Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi, Pin : 110 008
2. Trent Ltd.,
As a subsidiary of Tata Group
Represented by its Managing Director/CEO
Trent House, G-block, Plot No. C – 60,
Bandra Kurla Complex; Bandra (E)
Mumbai 400 051
3. Delhi Government
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi - 110002
CC/252/2018
Radhakrishnan R
S/o Raveendran Nair. T
16.E, Pocket – 3, Mayur Vihar Phase – 1,
Near Uttara Guruvayoorappan Temple,
Delhi – 110091
……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Vishal Mega Mart, Karol Bagh,
Div. of Airplaza Retail Holdings Private Limited,
Represented by its Manager/Business Head
10209/1021, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi, Pin – 110 005
2. Airplaze Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
As a subsidiary of Shriram Group Pvt. Co.,
Represented by its Managing Director
Plot No. 184, Platinum Tower,
5th Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase – I, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122016
3. Delhi Government
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
Delhi – 110002
.…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Shri R.S. Nagar, Member
ORDER 2019
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Complainant has filed above two complaints one bearing no. 251/2018 against West Side, Karol Bagh (OP 1), Trent Ltd., (OP 2) and Delhi Government (OP 3) and second bearing no. CC/252/2018 against Vishal Mega Mart, Karol Bagh (OP 1), Airplaze Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd., (OP 2) and Delhi Government (OP 3) under sections 12 (1) ( C) & 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleading therein that he purchased a Kurthi from OP 1 (Westside, Karol Bagh Unit of Trent
Ltd.) for an amount of Rs. 685.00 and Jacket from OP 1 (Vishal Mega Mart, Karol Bagh) for an amount of Rs. 599.00 on 22/11/2018. He was charged for Rs. 10/- for paper carry bag which contained an advertisement of OP 1. Complainant requested OP to provide him a carry bag without the advertisement of OP 1. He was informed by the lady on the cash counter that they did not have any such carry bag which did not contain advertisement of the OP I. Complainant was left with no alternative but to purchase the carry bag which was priced much higher as compared to the other carry bags available in the market.
It is also alleged that OP 1 and OP 2 never pay ‘‘legally mandatory levy” to local self-Governments or Municipalities under the control of OP 3 which is Delhi Government. OP 3 has allegedly failed to perform its ‘’legally assigned duties including monitoring of the day to day affairs of both Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs as well as local self Government.’’ OP 1 and OP 2 are stated to have earned huge amount from sale of carry bags containing their advertisement which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
Further it is stated that the bills issued by OPs are printed electronically which are low in quality and are not legible or durable. Complainant has prayed for direction to the OPs :
- ‘‘to refund the amounts collected illegally from the complainant & his family with interest.
- to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) for the achievements & benefits attain by using Complainant & his family as a Moving Model without any proper agreement or Payment.
- to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakhs Only) for the mental agony and inconveniences suffered by the complainant.
- to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- of this proceeding.
- to stop the restrictive and unfair trade practice adopted by them.
- to publish an advertisement through Public Relations Department informing the general public to the effect that they are ready and willing to refund the illegal amounts collected from the consumers or
- to deposit the illegal amount collected by them from the unidentified consumers, in the Legal Benefit Fund of this Forum or the State of Delhi.
- to provide carry bags to the consumers without their advertisements.
- to issue legible and durable bills to the consumers on purchase of their products.
- to take proper actions against the other Opposite Parties for their unfair trade practice & violation of various laws including Consumer Law.
- Pass any other such order, as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.’’
2. The cases are at admission stage. We have heard the complainant. Complainant in para 8 of the complaint alleged that OP 1 is bound to provide carry bags to the complainants. He has not shown any law/Rule which makes it compulsory for OP 1 to provide a carry bag to the customers. Complainant has placed on record a copy of a research paper issued by Northern Ireland Assembly dated 23 February 2011 which deals with comparison of environmental impact of plastic, paper and cloth bags and concludes that cotton bags are 100 times safer than plastic or paper bags.
3. Complainant has expressed his grievance that the price for the shopping bag charged by the OPs was exorbitant. In 2014 in Nagpur the price for plastic carry bag was Rs. 5/- . Nagpur Municipal Corporation observed that nominal charge of Rs. 5/- for plastic bag did not discourage the use of such bags. Therefore it notified that
shoppers asking for free carry bags will be denied or charged Rs. 10 for a bag. It applied to all shopkeepers, retailers and even roadside vendors. The charge of Rs. 10/- per carry bag was introduced as part of Nagpur Municipal Corporation Policy to reduce litter and to protect environment. In another experiment carried out by Sanjay Nagar of Bangaluru in Dec. 2014 several shopkeeper signed up a programme called ‘‘Rent A Bag’’ under which shopping bags were given to shoppers who did not come with their own bags at no cost. Shoppers had to deposit Rs. 5 for small bags and Rs. 20 for large bags. On returning the bag to any Rent a Bag shop the shoppers could collect the deposit. The programme Rent a Bag was introduced with a goal to reduce plastic waste and to encourage people to carry their own bags while shopping.
4. Environment friendly citizens do carry their own shopping bags preferably cloth bags while going for shopping. Complainant did not carry any such bag with him. He wanted a carry bag. Therefore he was charged Rs. 10/- for the same. No law is shown under which OP is required to give a shopping bag free of cost to its customers or which prohibits advertisement on a shopping bag. Allegations qua non payment of some ‘‘legally mandatory levy” to local self-Governments or
Municipalities under the control of OP 3 and allegations against Delhi Government about its failure to perform its ‘’legally assigned duties including monitoring of the day to day affairs of both Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs as well as local self Government’’ are not only vague but challenge to the same does not lie within jurisdictional domain of the consumer fora. Another grievance of the complainant is that bill is not legible or durable. He has not complained that OP ever disputed the bill. He has further not stated as to what prejudice is caused to him. Photocopy of the bill placed on record is legible. Complaint is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 28th day of January 2018.
